Warrants

Aqila Zaman
SS100
 Warrants represent the reasoning
process by which we establish the
relationship between the claim and
the support
Types of warrants

1. Authoritative warrant is based on

the credibility of the source – if the
source is sound the support
justifies the claim
Example

Claim: According to Dr Bloom most

children can learn everything that
is taught to them
Support: Dr Bloom says so
Warrant: Dr Bloom is an accepted
authority on child education
Reservations: Unless his data is
inaccurate, or his evaluation flawed
2. Substantive/generalization warrant
is based on beliefs about reliability
of factual evidence

 These warrants are credible only if

the examples are representative of
the whole group being described
Example

 I have collected data on the Hillside

strangler, the Pennsylvania
shoemaker and the Florida man
who killed 34 women. All of them
grew up not knowing who their
natural parents were.
Claim: People brought up without a
sense of identity of their parents will
respond to the world with rage
Support: The Hillside strangler, the
Florida man and the Pennsylvania
shoemaker
Warrant: What is true of this sample is
true for others in this class
Reservations: Unless the sample is too
small
3. Motivational warrant is based on
the needs and values of the
audience
 People accept or reject the claim if
they find the warrants relevant to
their own values or standards.
Value warrants are useful in
arguments on public policy
Example

 8 % is a very small percentage of

the faculty. Most students at
Berkeley have never been taught
by a woman professor. As a result
there is lack of role models, and
this results in a lack of breadth into
the teaching
Claim: The proportion of women on
the Berkeley faculty should be
increased
Support: Most students never have a
woman teacher
Warrant: Exposure of students to
women faculty is desirable
Reservation: unless women faculty
are less competent than men